OPPapers.com

Whistle Blowing: Vioxx

When a situation requires someone to blow the whistle – which is completely separate from muckraking because whistle blowers have direct ties with the organizations and "disclose wrongdoing for moral reasons" (James, 1988, p. 315) – it can readily be surmised how the implications of wrongdoing are quite irrefutable. That the most basic of all business ethics are being cast aside in exchange for personal gain clearly indicates how the few whistle blowers courageous enough to come forward are intent upon maintaining whatever shred of ethics remain within the given company. Gordon Gekko, the ruthless, antagonizing business mogul in Hollywood's interpretation of Wall Street, represents the epitome of complete disregard for contemporary corporate ethics; his callous approach to business precludes any ability to see beyond his overwhelming greed. As such, he instills within his underlings this same malevolence, a premise one might readily argue quite clearly mirrors the recent incident involving Merck's Vioxx, particularly now that the drug is being reconsidered for reintroduction to the market pending FDA approval.
Based upon the wholly incriminating "internal Merck e-mails and marketing materials as well as interviews with outside scientists" (Mathews et al, 2004, p. A1), the company's credibility for, according to Chief Executive Raymond Gilmartin, "putting patient safety first" (p. A1) has been tainted beyond repair, no matter how carefully or responsibly Merck might approach its product's re-entry into the market. Mathews et al (2004) note that amid growing danger signs, "Merck fought a rearguard action for 4 1/2 years, clinging to a hope that somehow Vioxx's safety could be confirmed -- even though its research chief had already privately acknowledged its risks" (p. A1).
Why did those who knew of this serious side effect fail to blow the whistle? Or, perhaps the question should be posed in a different way: Why would someone risk physical and emotional well...